Now Available for Download---LWAMI v3.03!!!

[LuftWolf]

Here is the v3.03 addition to the readme.

XX-Changes for LWAMI 3.03-XX
SLAM-ER Upgrade-We have enabled ASuW capability for the SLAM-ER equipped on the player P-3 Orion. The missile can now function in Strike mode and ASuW mode. To set the missile for Strike mode, use as described in the manual as before. Be sure to make the final waypoint directly over the target or the missile will likely cause only light damage (as the SLAM-ER has a much smaller warhead than the TLAM, about half). To use the missile in ASuW mode, set the two approach waypoints such that the missile is headed at the surface target as it approaches the final waypoint and ***set the last waypoint over water*** (this is how the missile is able to distinguish Strike mode and ASuW mode... if the last waypoint is over land, it will operate in strike mode, if it is over water, it will operate in ASuW mode). The last waypoint is the enable point for the weapon. At the enable point, the missile will drop from its skimming altitude of 30ft to just above wave-level. At this point the weapon will enable, and if it immediately has a target, will stay low to the sea and home the target. If the missile does not immediately acquire a target, it will slowly climb back to search altitude of 30ft, and travel in a straight line, searching and homing using a radar seeker. The sequence described is a "stealth enable" feature that should improve the survivability of this weapon over the standard Harpoon. In this mode the weapon resembles a Harpoon with upgraded stealth, range, warhead, and waypoint capabililty. In terms of warhead power, two SLAM-ER hits will destroy a FFG7 OHP. The AI F/A-18 Hornet and P-3 Orion previously equipped with the SLAM-ER have been given an appropriate load of SLAM's for Strike capability and Harpoons for ASuW capability as the AI is not able to properly use the SLAM-ER.

Helo Dipping-Several internal changes have been made to the helo doctrines to prevent dipping sonar "dragging" and limit crashes. There is still work to do, but it will have to wait for the changes in DW 1.04.

The files are currently available for download from the CADC, courtesy of OneShot, in this thread http://www.commanders-academy.net/showthread.php?p=8557#post8557 , and I'm sure Bill Nichols will have it posted to www.subguru.com (http://www.subguru.com) soon as well.

I hope you enjoy the new version, and as always, be sure to let me know if you find any bugs, etc. :up:

Thanks!

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Just so you guys know, expect another version of LWAMI 3.xx in the next two weeks or so that will address any bugs found in 3.03, introduce more helo tuning, add the HellfireII to the US Navy arsenal (fire and forget version of the Hellfire allowing the MH60 salvo capability) and perhaps add the expanded playable unit list that is included in the LWAMI 4.xx playtest (I still haven't decided if that will be exclusive to the "next-gen" version of LWAMI, but probably not).

Be sure to give me your ideas as well. :up:

Cheers,
David

[UglyMowgli]

Thank's a lot for the work:D along waited news for our maritime Patrol crew. I will publish the news at MS when the webiste will be online (got a lot of trouble with it :damn:).

[LuftWolf]

I should have ported this over to LWAMI 3.xx sooner. :dead:

Without proper ASuW capability the P-3 is really hamstrung.

Oddly enough, it took me some time to come over to the camp of people who thought such a change was necessary... perhaps it coincided with the discovery of a way to fix it. :)

The P-3 really ought to be feared in MP now. Even if the SLAM-ER's effectiveness proves to be low for a single missile, the fact that it can carry so many of them, and the TACCO can vector them from so many directions at once, means any single FFG caught outside an AEGIS umbrella is going to have a serious problem.

I suspect some previous cake-walk FFG scenarios will be tipped in favor of the P-3's now (I'm thinking specifically about some of your's Molon... Taiwan...).

I also hope more people decide to take the P-3 as a primary platform in clubs, etc., that can only be good for DW.

Cheers,
David

PS They're also going to be getting the Mk60 CAPTOR Mine.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/captor2.jpg

[sonar732]

Good news on the Captor mine! The Captor was a common tactic in the SOSUS-lined area waiting for the Soviet subs to come across them and BAM! Please make sure that this is implemented as it will cause problems for friendlies!

Its acoustic detection system is designed to seek hostile submarines, ignoring surface craft and friendly submarine acoustic signatures.

[Bill Nichols]

Excellent news! Now all we need is for XabbaRus to finish his work on the new models for DW. :yep:

[Molon Labe]

I should have ported this over to LWAMI 3.xx sooner. :dead:

Without proper ASuW capability the P-3 is really hamstrung.

Oddly enough, it took me some time to come over to the camp of people who thought such a change was necessary... perhaps it coincided with the discovery of a way to fix it. :)

The P-3 really ought to be feared in MP now. Even if the SLAM-ER's effectiveness proves to be low for a single missile, the fact that it can carry so many of them, and the TACCO can vector them from so many directions at once, means any single FFG caught outside an AEGIS umbrella is going to have a serious problem.

I suspect some previous cake-walk FFG scenarios will be tipped in favor of the P-3's now (I'm thinking specifically about some of your's Molon... Taiwan...).

Hey now, the whole purpose of the FFG in that one was to create an AAW "bubble" that the P-3 coudn't operate in unless the Kilo's got the job done. Both side's missions are dependent on the performance of other platforms on ownside. If the P-3 could win that one all on its own, that would be a Bad Thing. If there is anything I've tried to avoid in any mission design, its setting it up so that one player can launch a missile volley right in the beginning and win right there.:down: The original version, made for stock DW, disabled most of the P-3's pylons to prevent this from happening with the "SuperMav" going up against the non-functioning RAMs. As it stands now, if the P-3 really wants to hit the FFG instead of supporting the Kilos or locating the 688I, it can successfully attack the FFG while the FFG is busy handling an AI missile volley. You know, unless the FFG guy has figured out that 1.03's phalanx won't miss and isn't bothering with the SM2's.

You are right that the FFG doesn't have to face much that it can't handle, but the P-3 isn't the problem there. The piss-poor performance of subsonic SSMs versus the now-100% effective Phalanx and the near-100% effective RAM SAMs are the problem. The single best way to improve the balance of that mission would be to add supersonic land based SSMs, or maybe to turn down the CIWS to pre-1.03 performance. =P

[Molon Labe]

I just tried 4 times to hit a lone Udaloy...got nothing.

In one attempt, one missile did get through, but then as the missile was inside Rmin for the SA-N-9, it suddenly pulled up and dissapeared. Is this what a spoofed SLAM will do? Another missile that I know was spoofed was seaskimming rather than climbing to chase the chaff, but was shot down before Rmin so I couldn't repeat it.

It seems like the acquisition range of the seeker is about 8nm, which is about the same range the SA-N-9 is fired. (Guns engagement begins around 13nm) At least against the Udaloy, the SLAM-ER doesn't seem to be getting any benefit from its flight profile. The salvo must pass through the entire engagement range of the Gauntlet. Since the detction range for the Udaloy is at least 13nm and the seeker range is only 8nm, and the missile won't drop to seaskimming mode unless it has acquired a target, effectiveness does not change whether the enable point is set right at 8nm or if it is further out. Although, to be totally fair, the SA-N-9 (SA-15) is pretty badass, probably at least as good as the ESSM. (although the near 100% hit rate we're seeing in DW is probably a little too badass).

Trying against a Sovremennyy, detection/guns engagement took place at 15nm. The SA-N-7 Gadfly (SA-13) engaged around 8-9nm and was about 40% effective, which is in line with Globalsecurity estimates. But the Sov's CIWS picked up most of the slack. Between two tests, one missile got through (and caused a CTD). In both, the division of labor was about half and half between the Gadfly and CIWS. (In comparrison, an AGM-65 run against the Sovremennyy scored multiple hits for 76% damage.)

Against an AI OHP, the OHP engaged with, sigh, single SM-2 shots (should be 2 at a time!) from 15nm out. It shot down 4 with SM-2s, 2 with the CIWS, and spoofed the other with chaff.

Against a Krivak, it detected the missiles and engaged with guns at about 12 nm, shot down 1 with the SA-N-4 (SA-8), shot down 4 with its CIWS and spoofed the other two.

So I shot 56 SLAM-ERs today and got 1 hit out of it.

It seems that the SLAM-ER is just as ineffective as the Harpoon is, with its improved flight profile having little to no effect. In any case, the overwhelming effectiveness of the Gauntlet and CIWS systems is more than a match for this or any other subsonic missile.

[LuftWolf]

I'll respond in more detail to individuals who have PM'ed me etc.

Well, it's not MY fault that the US doesn't build SSASM's. :p

The overall radar parameters need to be tweaked, but given the fact that DW uses a reasonably simple threshold detection, there is no way to have a probabalistic detection of small missiles, which is probably a more accurate reflection of how detection behavior occurs in real life. In other words, I can tweak the radar ranges or missle Radar SL to make detection occur later, but the danger is in making the ships way TOO myopic in other circumstances or the missiles much too stealth.

It's a balancing act, and the radars have never really been addressed.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

I'll respond in more detail to individuals who have PM'ed me etc.

Well, it's not MY fault that the US doesn't build SSASM's. :p

The overall radar parameters need to be tweaked, but given the fact that DW uses a reasonably simple threshold detection, there is no way to have a probabalistic detection of small missiles, which is probably a more accurate reflection of how detection behavior occurs in real life. In other words, I can tweak the radar ranges or missle Radar SL to make detection occur later, but the danger is in making the ships way TOO myopic in other circumstances or the missiles much too stealth.

It's a balancing act, and the radars have never really been addressed.

Cheers,
David
I think the detection range is fine. That's going to be decided by geometry anyways. One approach to tweak that, though, might be to make actual detection take a bit longer based on the speed and altitude of the missile, and the scan rate of the radar (esp. rotating vs. phased-array). I don't know if that's possible though. Certainly, the last thing we should do is make the detection ranges for supersonic missiles even shorter!

I'm more bothered that the Gauntlet and CIWS systems seem virtually impenetrable--even for the rather poorly-defended Krivak.

I'm OK with a lot of these results...I do think it's fair that the Gauntlet and CIWS combined can handle 7 missiles--although the nearly 100% hit probability of the Gauntlet is hard to swallow. The performance of other SAMs looks OK. I'm also happy that I don't need to re-tweak my missions. =P I do think the CIWS was way too good though, smacking down as many as 4 missiles in less than 5 seconds. You would think 4 missiles would be enough to oversaturate a CIWS.

I got the impression that you were trying to create a flight profile that would make it survivable enough to attack combattants that the Harpoon and TASM couldn't manage (in salvo sizes less than 10, anyways). As it stands, the SLAM-ER is a threat to the same ships that the Harpoon and TASM are, but no more.

[LuftWolf]

Actually, the stealth enable was a consequence of the mechanics I used to make the missile enable, and I had a choice to either fight the NSE or work with it to "featurize" the unintended function, so I decided to work it into a feature, since it was also happily in line with what's known about the behavior of small, modern subsonic ASM's, so it was really a happy accident.

Also, keep in mind that firing seven missile against the AI is not the same as firing the same number of missiles against a human player. I'd imagine that hearing seven vampire warnings from seven different bearings would test the nerves of most FFG players... you can't say for yourself that you'd be 100% sure of not letting at least one go through, which would effectively be a mission kill for you.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Want to MP test the OHP? I'm betting the CIWS takes out about 5 on its own anyways.

I've run through this a few more times. It is possible to increase the concentration of the salvo a bit more than I did in the above tests. It doesn't make a huge difference, but it's more than I thought it would be. If you get the P-3 going as fast as it can go, and fire all the missiles on the same initial course, you can get the the missiles salvo as tight as 4 seconds. In the tests above the grouping was probably in the 6-8 range.

The practical effect of that means that you can get the Krivak, and you have a slim chance of getting some decent hits on the Sov (both the Gadfly and CIWS have to perform below par). The OHP and Udaloy are still out of reach (unless the stupid AI OHP doesn't turn to bring its CIWS to bear).

[LuftWolf]

MP in DW... wow? it's been a WHILE.

Actually, give me a couple of days, I'm 40% done with the documentation and an update to LWAMI 4.xx. We can test a few things then.

I'm right now in the process of rounding off the edges of a distributable next-gen mod (that should be treated as an Alpha, but it's definately playable as nothing is left intentionally broken... in other words, I need it to be played).

Cheers,
David

[Sea Demon]

I'll respond in more detail to individuals who have PM'ed me etc.

Well, it's not MY fault that the US doesn't build SSASM's. :p

The overall radar parameters need to be tweaked, but given the fact that DW uses a reasonably simple threshold detection, there is no way to have a probabalistic detection of small missiles, which is probably a more accurate reflection of how detection behavior occurs in real life. In other words, I can tweak the radar ranges or missle Radar SL to make detection occur later, but the danger is in making the ships way TOO myopic in other circumstances or the missiles much too stealth.

It's a balancing act, and the radars have never really been addressed.

Cheers,
David

Thanks for the responses, and for your work on giving us this great mod. The only thing I'm wondering about is missile effectiveness of US ASM's. I'm wondering if they are so easily dealt with in real life. I think the balancing act you speak is a difficult one because it's hard to gauge just how effective ASM's and their SAM counterparts would be against one another in real life. Are you looking at certain stats to gauge this? I find it difficult to believe that me and a Ticonderoga CG can fire alot of Harpoons (10) against 1 single Sovremenny and get no results. I know the Sov's SA-N-7's have much more time to deal with the subsonic profile of the incoming missile, but does the Sov radar really pick them up early enough to engage all 10 within that range. And the Sov's SAM's seem to have a high PK against them. Something tells me I should get at least 1 or 2 hits against a single Sovremenny with 10 or more Harpoons. And all of them getting there close to the same amount of time.

[Molon Labe]

Thanks for the responses, and for your work on giving us this great mod. The only thing I'm wondering about is missile effectiveness of US ASM's. I'm wondering if they are so easily dealt with in real life. I think the balancing act you speak is a difficult one because it's hard to gauge just how effective ASM's and their SAM counterparts would be against one another in real life. Are you looking at certain stats to gauge this? I find it difficult to believe that me and a Ticonderoga CG can fire alot of Harpoons (10) against 1 single Sovremenny and get no results. I know the Sov's SA-N-7's have much more time to deal with the subsonic profile of the incoming missile, but does the Sov radar really pick them up early enough to engage all 10 within that range. And the Sov's SAM's seem to have a high PK against them. Something tells me I should get at least 1 or 2 hits against a single Sovremenny with 10 or more Harpoons. And all of them getting there close to the same amount of time.

10 missiles should be enough to get past a Sov at least part of the time...if the salvo is tight enough. The AI skimmers pause about 2 seconds between each missile shot--so they really can't hit much.

But considering the real-world performance of the Exocet and C-802, I'm surprised that it takes 10+. I really wish we had better data on CIWS performance...

[Sea Demon]

10 missiles should be enough to get past a Sov at least part of the time...if the salvo is tight enough. The AI skimmers pause about 2 seconds between each missile shot--so they really can't hit much.

But considering the real-world performance of the Exocet and C-802, I'm surprised that it takes 10+. I really wish we had better data on CIWS performance...

That's what I thought. Maybe my salvo is not as tight as it should be. I'll try a few more times. The thing is, the Tico fires when the Tico wants to. Me as the FFG skipper have no control over that. And Tico usually fires 6 Harpoons in a salvo. Because it takes me more than 2 minutes to launch all 4 of mine, and I like to set waypoints to make them arrive as close to the same time as possible, this can be a challenge. I'm just thinking that the SA-N-7's may be too effective then they may be in real life. At the very least, for gameplay's sake, I think they should be toned down bit.

[LuftWolf]

Personally I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that the radar profile of certain missiles is way too high... a little trigonometry tells me that the frontal surface area of a missile approaching a warship at 10nm exposed to the warships radar emitters is damn small... combine that with the fact that small ASM missiles are made with radar absorbing materials and the fact the missile is operating against the backdrop of the WHOLE ocean tells me that while the incoming ship may know that an active vampire is coming at them, it is a bit unlikely at the ships Fire Control radars would be able to track the missile until it is MUCH closer, unless the vampire were moving fast (giving a large doppler) or had a higher flight profile (so it was over the horizon level vis-a-vis the radar emitter).

On top of that the CIWS is probably over powered...

I'd like to hear people's opinions, like I said, I have it on my list to do radar tweaks, so right now I'm thinking of: 1) lowering the radar profile of slower missiles with a lower flight profile and perhaps lowering the Fire Control radar profile of the missiles even further (yes the parameters for Search and Fire Control radar detectability can be adjusted separately) 2) lowering the weapon effectiveness of the CIWS bullets ( :) ).

Cheers,
David

[sonar732]

Wasn't the Harpoon said to have a 'pop up' manuever prior to it's attack so that it would hit the said ship from a angle pointing down on it? I remember in the old RSR game the graphics showing this manuever.

[LuftWolf]

Well, yes, this really gets at the cremaster of this whole mechanic.

I just sank a OHP and a Sov. The Udaloy appears to be out of reach, which is proper, as it is a modern AEGIS equivalent with VLS and the very capable SM-9.

However, I absolutely believe that the most modern American ASM missile should be able to sink the OHP with seven missiles or so.

The answer here is to do exactly what I mentioned above, and this is a really nice small surgery rather than going through and rescaling the whole radar system which would take weeks. So I'm going to lower the Search radar profile of slower missiles and the FC radar profile of the missiles even further, I am then going to tweak the CIWS effectiveness down. These changes together should make these missiles appropriately effective.

Currently, the missile vs. anti-missile system is tilted towards very fast missiles, since the only parameter that determines success for the shooter is how many missiles can close the effective range of the countermeasures at the same time, with detection being essentially equal between all missiles.

So, now the only question is how far to go? Well, I'm going to tweak it so that the P-3 can KO the FFG about 65% of the time. Why? Sounds right to me. (this is an invitation for your opinions...)

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Wasn't the Harpoon said to have a 'pop up' manuever prior to it's attack so that it would hit the said ship from a angle pointing down on it? I remember in the old RSR game the graphics showing this manuever.

I've heard... however, this sort of thing is rolled into the DW engine (damage calc. is straightforward), and feeding weapons commands after they have started homing is very likely to cause malfunction.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Well, yes, this really gets at the cremaster of this whole mechanic.

I just sank a OHP and a Sov. The Udaloy appears to be out of reach, which is proper, as it is a modern AEGIS equivalent with VLS and the very capable SM-9.

However, I absolutely believe that the most modern American ASM missile should be able to sink the OHP with seven missiles or so.

The answer here is to do exactly what I mentioned above, and this is a really nice small surgery rather than going through and rescaling the whole radar system which would take weeks. So I'm going to lower the Search radar profile of slower missiles and the FC radar profile of the missiles even further, I am then going to tweak the CIWS effectiveness down. These changes together should make these missiles appropriately effective.

Currently, the missile vs. anti-missile system is tilted towards very fast missiles, since the only parameter that determines success for the shooter is how many missiles can close the effective range of the countermeasures at the same time, with detection being essentially equal between all missiles.

So, now the only question is how far to go? Well, I'm going to tweak it so that the P-3 can KO the FFG about 65% of the time. Why? Sounds right to me. (this is an invitation for your opinions...)

Cheers,
David
The OHP is a bit of an oddity. In RL, we know that 2 missiles is enough to incapacitate one in terms of hits--and that's assuming one doesn't explode IIRC. As for its defenses, we don't know how well the CIWS does... but the SM-1 does not have anti-missile capability. It's a safe bet that it won't survive a 7 missile salvo. But, when you fictitiously add an SM-2 to that.... it gets iffy. When you smoked yours, did the CIWS engage? There is also a consistent problem with the AI OHP--it only guides one missile at a time, even though it has two independently targetable FCRs. With the SM-2, and the ability to guide two at a time, I'd put the OHP's survivability somewhere between the Gauntlet-CIWS and Gadfly-CIWS combo.

Now, if you're asking for a specific survival % for the OHP vs. 7 of these...what concern is driving the target %? If it's realism, it should be 0--but since the OHP is unrealisticly capable at AAW in DW, that's going to screw everyone else. But if I wanted to set a %age for other ships... I'd probably put the Neustrashimmy (Gauntlet and SA-19/gun combo) around 90%+ (0-2 hits), the Udaloy around 90% (more hits: 1-3, but higher damage capacity), the Sov around 66% (1-4 hits), and laugh at the fate of the Krivak, Grisha, et. al (2+ hits). Based on that, I'd throw the DW OHP in the 66-75% range. If the FCR problem is not fixed, then I'd put the AI DW OHP lower...in the 40-50% range (But a player controlled OHP should still be up around 66-75%).

I definitely like the direction you're looking in with the search and FC radar profiles, and especially that you're keeping the altitude and doppler in mind. I think the most significant problem DW has in this regard is that the missiles are too easily detected and engaged. Making that phase a bit tougher should go a long way.

For the most part, the hit % of most missiles fired seems pretty good. The exception is the Gauntlet, which I'm observing at 93% or better. I disagree with your comparison of the Udaloy to the AEGIS-equipped ship, as the Udaloy is an ASW platform. The Russian analogue to the AEGIS/SM-2 combo is the SA-N-6 Grumble, not the Gauntlet. And even so, the AEGIS/SM-2 combo is only about 80% effective in DW IIRC. So I'd turn down the Gauntlet to a max 80%, but not much lower. The Gauntlet DOES use a phased arrary though, so I would not reduce its detection/engagement range significantly, if at all.

As for the CIWS...I think it's too good, but out of sympathy for human players driving the "Hellen Keller class", I only recommend a slight tweak. But as it stands now, that thing makes "shooting a bullet with a bullet" a bit too easy. My "gut feeling" is that a kill rate of more than 1 missile per second is too good.

[LuftWolf]

Well, it's a mute point now.

I don't have the database conversion tool now, so now that everyone (including me) has upgraded to the 1.04 patch, LWAMI is completely shelved until Ludger or jsteed code a new editor, which shouldn't be TOO long.

Cheers,
David

[goldorak]

Well, it's a mute point now.

I don't have the database conversion tool now, so now that everyone (including me) has upgraded to the 1.04 patch, LWAMI is completely shelved until Ludger or jsteed code a new editor, which shouldn't be TOO long.

Cheers,
David

After waiting sooooooooo long for the 1.04 patch (and what great improvements it has :cool: ) we now have to wait (i hope not too long) for the definitive dw mod.
It seems that waiting is fundamental to the world of Dangerous Waters. :rotfl:

[Molon Labe]

"mute point". hehe.

Oh, just so you know, I was getting those numbers based off of the hit % of the missiles, SAM salvo size, an assumption that the CIWS would usually get 2, and an assumption that the radar tweaks would result in one SAM salvo being forgone for most ships.

[LuftWolf]

I've just received a version of DWedit from Ludger that can convert 1.03 database to 1.04 and edit 1.04 databases, which means we're back in business.

Expect LWAMI 3.04, which will be fully compatible with DW 1.04 within the next 36 hours.

Cheers,
David

[Sea Demon]

I've just received a version of DWedit from Ludger that can convert 1.03 database to 1.04 and edit 1.04 databases, which means we're back in business.

Expect LWAMI 3.04, which will be fully compatible with DW 1.04 within the next 36 hours.

Cheers,
David
Excellent news. Things seem to be coming together nicely. And I thank you for your efforts.

[Bellman]

:D David I second SD - this is fantastic news ! :|\\ Thanks for all you have done. :ping:

[Molon Labe]

LW is a pimp:rock:

[Sea Demon]

LW is a pimp:rock:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[SmugFish]

I've just received a version of DWedit from Ludger that can convert 1.03 database to 1.04 and edit 1.04 databases, which means we're back in business.

Expect LWAMI 3.04, which will be fully compatible with DW 1.04 within the next 36 hours.

Cheers,
David

I hope you will encourage Ludger to make it available to the rest of us...

[Rip]

I've just received a version of DWedit from Ludger that can convert 1.03 database to 1.04 and edit 1.04 databases, which means we're back in business.

Expect LWAMI 3.04, which will be fully compatible with DW 1.04 within the next 36 hours.

Cheers,
David

36 HOURS!!!

We need to copy the broadcast before then. you will just have to get it done faster.

:lol::p

Seriously mighty fine and prompt work. Someone should really be paying you.:yep:

[LuftWolf]

Ok, it's looking like tomorrow morning on the East Coast US is a reasonable time to expect it to be released. :up: (flash to whatever image you may have of me furiously punching things into a laptop)


Someone should really be paying you.


I agree, but I'm glad I haven't accepted any money so I can still compete in the Olympics.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

LW is a pimp:rock:

Since it's coming from an attorney, I can neither confirm nor deny this charge, but I can say I take 100% of whatever money comes into this organization (so far my total take is $0, now that's pimpin').

Cheers,
David

[Bellman]

LW: ''Attorney'' I'm sure ML will clarify but........ML Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:30 pm Sub Club International:''I'm now a first year law student...... '' Of course as a 'two-brainer' I'm sure he's quite capable of making such rapid progress. :know:

As for MLs pimp jibe - are'nt lawyers the second oldest 'profession' ? :yep::lol:

[Molon Labe]

LW: ''Attorney'' I'm sure ML will clarify but........

ML Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:30 pm Sub Club International: ''I'm now a first year law student...... ''

As for MLs pimp jibe - are'nt lawyers the second oldest 'profession' ? :yep::lol:

Nah, the 2nd oldest is probably some variant of henchman--bodyguard, soldier, thug...that sorta thing. The lawyers start popping up after armed factions form, and some realize they're not going to win that game so they need to play something else. :lol:

[Bellman]

:rotfl::rotfl: C wot I mean !

[LuftWolf]

Wow, I really want to play some RB6 right now... :x

Have I ever told you guys how much I love the helos and aircraft in this game? :mad:

It's like training kittens.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Ok, in taking a short break I'll give you guys a quick update on what's already been plated and what's still on the fire for 3.04. :)

Done:

-Aircraft and Helos-- Numerous internal changes to simply make these things work better. Notably: AI helos will definately no longer drag their active dipping sonar (although it never actually registered a contact) and they should not crash "as often"; the AI MH60 when under player FFG control should no longer go wandering off on its own, also it now launches with its radar OFF. :up:

-Hellfire II fire and forget (salvo capable) ASM added to player and AI MH60 and appropriate other US platforms.

-The E-2 thrust has been fixed so it can now be used for carrier launches without crashing

-The SW WAA hardcap has been added back to 15nm (sorry I got this wrong the first six times), so it will no longer register contacts over that range. However, the SW Hull array has been modified so it has a full forward view encompassing the entire coverage of the sphere sonar as well, although it is still treated as a separate array. This change is based on photographs that amizaur posted to the mod forum some time back of a separate low frequency array that is positioned under the sphere array and runs down the sides of the hull.

-The speed of the 688i has been reduced to 33kts and the speed of the Akula I Imp has been increased to 35kts. This is based on the best available estimates, identical to the values in SCXIIc, and long overdue in LWAMI.

-The bearing error of all player submarine Sphere and Towed Array sonars has been increased. Submarine hull sonars, FFG sonars, and AI sonars have been left as before. (I'm sure this will come up at some point in discussion :know: )

-I have added the expanded playable hull list and "Easternized" the playable submarine hull and class names. Non-playable units have retained their NATO designations. Although the names of all the Kilos have been changed, their database Object ID remain the same so their should be no backward compatibility issues with old missions. Units added: three Proj 971a/m; two Proj 971u; numerous Proj 877KM, the SSN23, three KLUB capable 636i for the PLAN.

-The Squal now has a very low noise profile upon launch, and does not become comicly loud until it fires its rocket motor at its enable point... it is now possible to use this weapon in a stealthy manner ( :o ) but you can develop your own tactics. :cool:

-The anti-missile performance of very capable AEGIS or AEGIS-equivalent ships should now be much better in terms of both ammo conservation and approriate "high threat" response.

-The Test-71-NK will now function exactly like the Test-71 except that it can be targeted at idenified surface targets on the fire control or nav map.

-I removed the Non-Exploding on CM's Mod from the torpedo scripting, since the DW 1.04 patch has made it redundant. (thank you SCS)

-I also removed the random direction mod from all torpedoes, since it is necessary for shooters of subrocs and FFG ASTAC's to know where their weapons are going when they fire them.

-I have lowered the overall CIWS effectiveness to something reasonable and reduce the radar sigs of small, slow, seaskimmers to reflect their real world effectiveness. I've also to reduced their Fire Control Radar signature even further to reflect the overall difficulty in actually engaging these kinds of missiles, designed to be survivable because they are in fact difficult to defeat using radar guided equipped (hence the RAM was developed... which is very effective against everything since its IR and very maneoverable). Also, AI the FFG7 OHP has been given the ability to have two SM-2's in the air at the same time, to reflect their real world and player counterpart capabilities, although keep in mind the launcher still reloads very slowly so the ship won't gain much benefit in close situations.

-Added a sensor to AI ASW aircraft that allows them to properly ID MAD contacts when they have directly overflown them, since before they just helplessly overflew contacts until it got classed in some other way, or if the mission designer went through hoops to get them to class the targets.

Things I want to do that will wait for LWAMI 3.05:

-Add a proper TIW message for missile launches. Gentlemen, we have the technology. :ping:

-Add the MK60 CAPTOR Mine, but someone is going to explain to me first how a ***MINE*** built during the Cold War is able to classify Red submarines from Blue or even whales for that matter using sonar when even our best sonobuoys now have a tough time of it. I suspect the MK60 is largely a the kind of propaganda designed to keep people out of our waterspace, otherwise its going to be a mine that shoots at first sight.

Done for now, except for the readme.

Cheers,
David

[goldorak]

I'll just say you're the man Luftwolf (and of course Amizaur as well :cool: ) .
Your mod is absolutely stunning and getting better as time goes by.
http://www.multiplayer.it/forumpics/forums/www/smiles/clap.gif http://www.multiplayer.it/forumpics/forums/www/smiles/clap.gif http://www.multiplayer.it/forumpics/forums/www/smiles/clap.gif http://www.multiplayer.it/forumpics/forums/www/smiles/clap.gif

[LoBlo]

@Luftwolf:

How do you recode all these changes so quickly? I mean there are hundreads of sensor, stats, and performance changes to put in? Are you using Ludger's DWEdit?:o

My mousing clicking fingers get tired just swapping a few sensors.

[LuftWolf]

Ludger's new editor will automatically detect if you are loading a 1.03 database and convert it to the 1.04 format without any manual input. :/\\k:

The changes I am making are either upgrades or attempting to resolve direct compatibility issues in terms of function (mostly redundant things in the mod that have been fixed in the engine, like getting helos and aircraft to attack reliably).

I've updated the list above as well.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Ok, LWAMI 3.04 is finished, I just need to write the readme and create the distributions. :)

Standby.

Cheers,
David

[goldorak]

Ok, LWAMI 3.04 is finished, I just need to write the readme and create the distributions. :)

Standby.

Cheers,
David

Is the graphical update also present with the 3.04 version or we have to wait for lwami 4 ?

[LuftWolf]

Xabba is working on the GFX updates.

I would expect a GFX update combined with LWAMI 3.04 very soon, although I've been so focused on getting this out that I need to touch base again with everyone who has contacted me since 3.03 came out.

Cheers,
David

[LoBlo]

Don't forget to update the new 688i mast and TA locations. (like i forgot) :up:

And on random side note: Ever notice that on the twin screwed torps all the screw rotate in concomitant directions instead of counterrotating like they should? Switching one of the propellers to a negative angular rotation gives a better effect imho

[LuftWolf]

Well, guess what I did forget to do that. :oops:

Ok, that's something I'm going to have to update overnight probably, maybe I can also do the other things I want to as well... we'll see.

I'll be sure to let everyone know.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Pimpin' ain't easy.

[LuftWolf]

Well no.

The good news is that this may convince me to do the missile launch TIW message and Mk60 tonight, which would be a good thing.

And of course, we'll see if there are any other bugs I need to fix as well. As it stands, the radar is not really usable on the 688i, but the other masts should be ok if you go a bit closer to the surface. I think we can all get by for 24 hours. :p

Cheers,
David

[LoBlo]

Well, guess what I did forget to do that. :oops:

Ok, that's something I'm going to have to update overnight probably, maybe I can also do the other things I want to as well... we'll see.

I'll be sure to let everyone know.

Cheers,
David


psssstt.... the VLS tube locations also need to be updated from the old 688i location to the new ones on the new model :). Some minor tweaks to the horizontal tube locations are needed as well. The FFG model is mostly identical with just some minor displacement of the forward launcher that's not really noticeable.


:up:

[LuftWolf]

Damn it, why wasn't informed of this in writing?! :damn:

:lol:

Thanks, LB, I hope SCS has fixed it in their database so I can just copy the values, one would hope...

Cheers,
David

[XabbaRus]

I'll download the 304 dbase and then change the model names. Then add the dbase to the pack and upload it to a server again.

[LuftWolf]

I'd hold off until I've had a version out for a few days. I'll let you know when I think it would be good to go ahead...

For example, 3.04 is already old news, I will have 3.05 out in the next 12-18 hours.

Cheers,
David